U.P. E. through its representatives, is recognized by the Employer as having the collective bargaining rights to represent employees in the bargaining unit covered by this agreement.
U.P. E., Local 4400 (2007), 161 L.A.C. (4th) 374 (Ont. Arb.); Globe and Mail (The) and CEP, Local 87-M, Re (2013), 233 L.A.C. (4th) 265 (Ont. Arb.)]. If confidentiality provisions in settlement documents are routinely ignored by the parties who enter into those settlements documents, there would be a disincentive to even consider settling particular issues. Furthermore, by agreeing that the terms of a settlement will be kept confidential by the parties involved ensures that the parties' agreement to resolve a particular issue in a particular manner will not be misconstrued/misunderstood by others. The arbitration cases are clear that, if it is concluded that a confidentiality breach of a settlement document has occurred, any remedy to be imposed beyond just a breach declaration will depend on all the circumstances involved in the breach. Some of the considerations to be made in such circumstances are: what was said or written that constituted the confidentiality breach, in what forum, and the degree to which specific financial and other key settlement details were disclosed; whether the confidentiality breach was intended, premeditated and deliberate as opposed to being inadvertent; whether the confidentiality breach was a one time only occurrence by a party or whether there was a pattern of confidentiality breaches by that party. In some cases, a declaration alone that a confidentiality breach had occurred would be considered appropriate. In other cases, particularly where deterrence is a proper factor to be considered because of the nature of the confidentiality breach and the circumstances relating to it, a remedy of damages may also be considered appropriate in addition to the breach declaration [See Green Grove Foods Corp. v. U.F.C.W, Local 175 (2012), 218 L.A.C. (4th) 267 (Ont. Arb.)]. (paras. 20-24) A final quotation from Globe and Mail (The) and CEP, Local 87-M, [2013] OLAA No. 273, 115 CLAS 210 (Davie), explains why parties may be motivated to settle discharge grievances in particular: As in the case of other types of litigation "nondisclosure" and "no admission of liability clauses" are also a recognition of the fact that parties settle grievances for a variety of reasons which may be unrelated to liability or wrongdoing. Employees may settle discharge grievances not because they accept that they have engaged in culpable misconduct warranting dismissal, but because they need money as they are now unemployed and can't afford to wait the weeks, months o...
U.P. E. Local 1145 Classifications, Hours of Work, Wages and Overtime TRANSPORTION GROUP LESS THAN 12 MONTH EMPLOYEES
U.P. E. Local 2764 Xxxxx Xxxxxx, CUPE Representative Xxxxxxx XxXxxxxxxxx, President Xxx Xxxxx Jo Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx St. Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx Marianhill Inc. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Cliche Xxxxx Xxxxxxx LETTER OF INTENT Between MARIANHILL And CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES And it LOCAL 2764 Without prejudice and precedent and with no liability to either party the Union and Management agree to the following for purposes of application of layoff. In order for a layoff to occur there must first be:
U.P. E. 2457 members) on Dec 31, 2000.
U.P. E. employees may choose to work during July and August for ten (10) hours a day for four (4) days or for eight (8) hours a day for five (5) days. The schedule chosen must be consistent throughout these months.
U.P. E. Local 1775
